LOTR

[utdeep]

I thought that the movie was the best movie I have ever seen!!
I watched it today and it blew me away. I love Tolkien... read Simarillion, Hobbit, LOTR, and several other short stories by the man. My family came with me, and they liked (AND UNDERSTOOD) it too!!! Everything seemed so perfect... it's like they pulled all the images in my mind from reading the books 11 years ago and stuck them on film. I can't wait to buy the DVD!!! I intend to watch it again personally and then take my mentee from Big Brothers/Big Sisters out to see it!
This beats the hell out of Star Wars!!! The battle scenes were fantastic (ILM eat your heart out!). And to think Fellowship of the Rings is my least favorite book out of the collection!

I almost want to cancel my peace corps assignment so I can see the next two films

AND Spiderman! AND Attack of the Clones!

 

[lini]

I saw the animation movie - about twenty years ago, I'd think.

But I found it quite good and close to the books. Can anybody compare both versions?

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[anders213]

Quote:

Originally posted by shivohum The movie was enjoyable in its own right, but as a representation of the book it was poor. Fundamentally, the characters and the dialog were just too cheesy...I did not take them seriously as real people. They felt more like walking stereotypes. See Gimli for a good example. Another case: Legolas was too young and brash to be an experienced elf. The characters in general suffered from a lack of dignity and three-dimensionality. The dialog was quite choppy too; it was just one action scene after the next. Where's the subtlety? Where are the hidden motives? Everything is so hamfistedly out in the open. Due to this problem, I had to stifle laughter during some "serious" parts like the mourning scene after Moria. In such places, I feel the movie practically satirizes the novel. Another problem I have with the movie is that I think there is a strong spiritual component to Tolkien's work. The whole portrayal of good and evil was too "out there" for this to be seen. Note the scene between Gandalf and Saruman--Saruman just instantly turns into this Sauron-zombie-thing. The Black Riders, I think, lose a lot of their charm because they are so much sound and fury, but of course real terror is delivered by silence. LoTR the movie seems to me to fit in the action movie genre; it doesn't have the mystique that would enable it to properly represent a legend or a myth such as LoTR the book is.

shivohum: The show is limited to only 3 Hours ya know? If they should add in every single minute detail as in the book. You will have to pay for 10 episodes than. And than you grumble about 10episodes being to costly. Come on dude. Give and take. You get less detail but you get graphically satisfied. There aint best of both worlds.

Anyway i think this show is great. Accompanying scores are terrific too.

Anders

 

[mr_slacker]

I got to agree with shivohum on this one.

Quote:

I had to stifle laughter during some "serious" parts like the mourning scene after Moria.

Me too! But I felt like a real coldhearted S.O.B. cause quite a few people in the cinema started to cry during this scene.

I think I have to regard the book(s) and the movie as totally separate entities. "This isn't how it was" was a thought that went through my mind at least 50 times during the movie. I can accept some due to the necessity to make the story more adaptable to the big screen. But to change the story without any need to. Blashphemy!

And Pippin talking with a scottish accent! Don't get me started on this one! Grrrrr...

I guess one positive effect of this movie is that more people will discover Tolkiens works. And that's a GOOD thing!

 

[MacDEF]

I haven't read the book yet, nor have I seen the movie. I plan to read the book before seeing the movie, though.

As for the whole book vs. movie debate... I'm sure I'll be satisfied. After seeing two different butcherings of Dune, my acceptance threshold is so low there's no way I'll be disappointed

 

[huy_ha]

Actually, I think it will help you to read all three books (time permitting) before seeing the movie.

 

[meithkiller]

I saw it opening day with my wife and about 15 of her coworkers (their boss let them have 1/2 day off with pay to go see it!), and loved it. I started reading the four books through again and finished the Fellowship of the Ring the morning I saw the movie. I kinda wished I hadn't just finished reading the book. I kept noticing every little difference and didn't enjoy the movie quite as much. Still loved it though. As a Tolkien fan I wished they would have added another 30-40 minutes and not left out quite as much, but I have to respect the producers' decision to market the film to a wider audience than just avid Tolkien fans. I will see it another 3 or 4 times in the theater before I buy it on DVD, but I think I'll just finish reading the trilogy now that way the storyline is fresh in mind for the next two movies, but not too fresh.

Anyone else have the soundtrack? As orchestral soundtracks go it is pretty good. A couple of songs by Enya thrown in for good measure, but they don't really detract from the rest of it.

-Keith

 

[slindeman]

I'm with Shivohum too and I'm just a budding LOTR fan -- I've read the first book 2 times, and haven't read the other 2 yet. I am a big fan of good screenwriting, good dialogue, and good book-to-movie adaptations, none of which I could find in the LOTR movie. It had great visuals and battle scenes, and some semblance of a good story, but that is not enough for me anymore. Hardly any of the characters were fleshed out even the tiniest bit, except possibly Gandalf and Frodo, and even then it was done heavy handed. Thus it makes perfect sense that the mourning scene (and many others that involved talking rather than sword swinging) came off very flat and forced. LOTR the movie almost seems like it was co-written by David Eddings, and that's not a good thing.

Another example of a bad adaptation (among many, of course!) is Henry James' Washington Square, where the movie swapped suspense for surprise, and was the worse for it imo. A good recent example is Sense & Sensibility. It's too bad the LOTR got such a watered down treatment really, especially if it does well like Star Wars / Star Trek did and paves the way for countless mediocre fantasy movies like we had science fiction ones. I would give LOTR 3 stars, worth seeing but nothing special. If I were young like when I saw Star Wars or if it were not based on such a well written book, I would probably feel differently.

 

[Mumrik]

Quote:

Originally posted by meithkiller (...) but I think I'll just finish reading the trilogy now that way the storyline is fresh in mind for the next two movies, but not too fresh.

Good idea... It's been eight to ten years or so since I read the books (since I'm 18 now, I was rather young), so I could remember the basics and I could recognise many things, yet I have forgotten many of the details over the years, so I wasn't constantly annoyed by these shortcommings...

I was really positively surprised by this movie but I do have a couple of comments;

In the beginning the black riders were awesome, very well done, but later on they are easily defeated twice (by Aragorn and by the river) the way this is done in the movie kinda castrates them...

I don't really know what to say about Aragorn... I never really liked Viggo Mortensen and he doesn't in any way look like a fighter, but he still does okay...

I really enjoyed Legolas. He was the only elve that didn't let me down, he was elegant and skilled...

Elrond: well, come on! He even talks like Agent Smith! Elves aren't ugly and they don't have bad skin... there was nothing "amazing" about Elrond in the movie...

Gandalf: I really liked Gandalf in this movie, he just fits the role very well...


What did you guys think of the scene in Rivendale where Bilbo turn ugly in his desire for the ring?
I liked the effect, it was actually the scariest thing in the movie.

 

[gloco]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mumrik What did you guys think of the scene in Rivendale where Bilbo turn ugly in his desire for the ring? I liked the effect, it was actually the scariest thing in the movie.

ya, that was pretty freaky, everyone jumped out of their stadium seats, lol.

George

 

[shivohum]

Quote:

What did you guys think of the scene in Rivendale where Bilbo turn ugly in his desire for the ring?

It worked quite well, unlike the godawful Galadriel temptation special effects. That could have been such a beautiful and deadly scene..

 

[pigmode]

Quote:

Originally posted by meithkiller ...but I have to respect the producers' decision to market the film to a wider audience than just avid Tolkien fans. -Keith

As do I. My point is he sometimes varied from the story in ways that did not further that goal. The only answer is that he either was trying to hype up a few scenes and or the story, or it was a fundamental misinterpretation on his part. In all the hype leading to the premire he paid a lot of lip service to his "responsibility" to the books, and by extension, to the fans--and of course, to history. Come on now, what's up with the Frankenstein-esque/primordial goopish creation scenes with Saruman's Uruk Kai? That was completely out there.

 

[dhwilkin]

The time spent on the Uruk-Kai probably would've been better spent fleshing out some of the other characters, like Merry & Pippin. I also wasn't a big fan of Galadriel's brief transformation. Still, the sheer amount of information that needed to be present to truly do the book and characters justice just wasn't going to happen in 3 hours. A friend suggested the length should've been extended to 4 or 5 hours, and let the audience have a ten-minute intermission in the middle, at some logical stopping point.

 

[Vertigo-1]

Umm, was Arwen really the elf that rescued Frodo from the Black Riders? I thought Arwen wasn't introduced until well into Rivendell, and hardly played any "exciting" role in the book.

 

[dhwilkin]

That was another liberty the movie took.